King Arthur
Chris Welty (galahad@camelot)
I am interested in old celtic legends and epic poems, particularly
those dealing with King Arthur and his Knights. We (RPI) have just joined
the news community two months ago, and I have seen no news in this group
yet. I would appreciate some info on what (if anything) has been discussed
so far, and I would also like to know if anyone shares my aformentioned
interest.
-Chris Welty
RPI CSCI
weltyc@rpi (PHONENET)
Random
>I hadn't thought that King Arthur was a 'Celtic legend', but that Camelot,
>et al, was somewhere in the middle or south of England. I could be wrong..
>
They were everywhere. But they were particularly in England/Scotland area.
--
Random
Research Triangle Institute
...!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb
dawn friedman
> >I hadn't thought that King Arthur was a 'Celtic legend', but that Camelot,
> >et al, was somewhere in the middle or south of England. I could be wrong..
> >
>
> They were everywhere. But they were particularly in England/Scotland area.
> --
attempt answer:
I've been plowing through a small percentage of the various versions
of the Arthur legend(s) from Malory on -- say, about twenty books in
the past couple of months. One idea that modern writers have picked
up on is that Arthur may have been an actual king of the Celts in
England, around the time that Rome gave up on maintaining a presence
in Britain and the Saxons were able to move in (the Celts having
leaned on Roman protection too long) -- that would be around 400 AD,
I think? But I don't know anything about the evidence they used; the
Arthur stories were pretty well scattered around long before any
written record shows up. What about the monk Gildas? Did he say
anything about Arthur, or am I imagining things?
The LEGEND can't really be called Celtic in its current multiplicity
of forms, can it? Certainly the Angles and Saxons took it up
cheerfully enough. When the author of _Pearl_ made his attempt at
bringing back alliterative verse (around Chaucer's time) what did
he write about? _Gawain and the Green Knight_!
But then again... there isn't much trace of Germanic heroic tradition
in the legend either, is there? No ring-giving, and not the same
relationship of lord to heroes, I think. Although the final battle
with its efficient clearing of the scene does remind me of the
Nibelungenlied: no population problem in this literature!
People who know, please give information. And does anyone know where
I can find a textbook in some Celtic language? Somehow there don't
seem to be any handy guides in Wordsworth.
dsf
(tisri chema)
and (dawn sharon/the Speaker)
Cheryl Nemeth
Morte d'Arthur (or whatever) were borrowed from the Welsh and Irish
legends. Merlin is definately Welsh. I believe that Morgan Le Fay
came from Morrigu.
bi...@persci.uucp
>>I hadn't thought that King Arthur was a 'Celtic legend', but that Camelot,
>>et al, was somewhere in the middle or south of England. I could be wrong..
>They were everywhere. But they were particularly in England/Scotland area.
> Research Triangle Institute
> ...!mcnc!rti-sel!rcb
--
Bill Swan {ihnp4,decvax,allegra,...}!uw-beaver!tikal!persci!bill
bi...@persci.uucp
>
>I've been plowing through a small percentage of the various versions
>of the Arthur legend(s) from Malory on -- say, about twenty books in
>the past couple of months. One idea that modern writers have picked
>up on is that Arthur may have been an actual king of the Celts in
>England, around the time that Rome gave up on maintaining a presence
>in Britain and the Saxons were able to move in (the Celts having
>leaned on Roman protection too long) -- that would be around 400 AD,
?? I thought that the "Angles" were under protection from the Romans, and that
Hadrian's wall (and another, further north, I think, I can't remember what it
was called) was built as a defence to keep the Celts and the Picts out.
Other than that, I can't argue. It certainly doesn't seem like a Germanic
legend.
I vaguely remember reading something about 8 to 10 years back, I think, in
a newspaper (no, I don't believe all that I read in the newspapers) that some
archaelogists had uncovered a grave that for some reason they thought might
have belonged to the real king upon which the legend was based. Did anybody
else see this? Does anyone remember any details?
Chris Lydgate
(pronounced "Tin-taj'-el") in Cornwall. "Ancient Legend" places
his reign as following Roman occupation of
Britain by several hundred years. If he existed, he was probably a
Cornish (i.e. celtic) ruler who opposed invasion by the Saxons
(English). Of course, later chroniclers embellished the legends
with medieval chivalry and Christian practices.
Concerning Hadrian's Wall, I think that the wall was
constructed by the Romans to separate the territory they had
conquered from the Celts from the territory they hadn't.
--
chris lydgate
c/o the information vortex
!tektronix!reed!lydgate
rei...@ucla-cs.uucp
Morgan Le Fay almost certainly came from the Celtic goddess Morrigan,
a sinister shapechanger who, on Samhain (Halloween, today) mates with
Dagda, the leading male figure of the British Celtic pantheon. Morrigan
is a very, very old figure, dating back to when the Celts were in Gaul
and Germany. Dagda is much more recent (relatively speaking).
There are definitely lots of Celtic borrowings in Arthurian legend, but
Arthur himself is probably not a generic Celtic figure. There are no
Arthurian legends in Ireland, for instance. There are lots of theories
on the origins of Arthur. One interesting recent theory is that he was
originally a Roman cavalry captain who operated in the vicinity of
Scotland, keeping the folks north of the wall from ravaging the south.
Another theory is that he is actually a legendary figure from the
Caucasus area in Eastern Europe, whose legend was brought to England
by Roman troops recruited from that area. (The evidence here is some
amazing similarities between Arthurian legend and Caucasus legend.)
Arthurian legends exist all over Britain, but there is an unusually
high concentration around Somerset and Glastonbury, in SW England.
Some people think that this region was the home of the historic Arthur.
--
Peter Reiher
rei...@LOCUS.UCLA.EDU
{...ihnp4,ucbvax,sdcrdcf}!ucla-cs!reiher
Jerry Lieberthal
I have seen that reference also. In the book "Arthur's Britain" I believe
the authors stated that a grave was opened, and they found a "large-boned"
individual, and an adjacent grave containing a body with "golden hair".
The authors were of the opinion that it could well be Arthur and his
queen ..
Chris Salander
> One interesting recent theory is that he was
> originally a Roman cavalry captain who operated in the vicinity of
> Scotland, keeping the folks north of the wall from ravaging the south.
> Another theory is that he is actually a legendary figure from the
> Caucasus area in Eastern Europe, whose legend was brought to England
> by Roman troops recruited from that area.
>
> high concentration around Somerset and Glastonbury, in SW England.
> Some people think that this region was the home of the historic Arthur.
> --
What I have read is that:
1) Arthur was part Briton and part Roman and took command of
a unit of heavy cavalry stationed in Northwestern England
after his father died.
2) The garrison was probably centered at Colchester. Chester
translates into "camp" and there are many chesters in western
England.
3) The Heavy Cavalry (or Knight of the Round Table) were the
only ones of their kind in England. They were Sarmatians,
who came from the western shores of the Black Sea, where
modern day Romainia is. They have large horses, a full suit
of chainmail, helmet, breastplate, sheild and lance. The
best armed troops of the day.
4) The Sarmatians were stationed in England in the standard
practice of many Empires. Troops were stationed in areas
far removed from their homeland so they would not have to
fight their own kind. The Russians found out about this
problem when they invaded Afghanistan with Muslim Soviets.
5) Arther and his cavalry were attempting to maintain some
form of order in the years after the Romans had withdrawn.
This puts the time frame in the late 400's, early 500's.
Britons were no longer Celts, but they weren't Saxons yet.
Into this power vaccum the Saxons and Danes came, seizing
eastern England. Arthur fought them from Western England
using his "chesters". When he suffered a serious reverse,
he spent a long time hiding out in the marshes of southwestern
England, which is why is he is so well remembered there.
(Just as Robert Bruce is well remembered in the places that
he hid).
6)Conclusion: Because of his Roman education and his
excellent cavalry, Arthur could beat any of the roving
bands and independent nobles that stood in his way. Whether
he could stand up to the organized armies of the invaders
depended on how much support he got from the Britons.
- Christopher Salander
(descended from the Crosbys of Lancastershire, England,
the McLaughlins, Welshes, and Slatterys of Kilrush and
other places in Erie)
(and the Salanders of Gerfle, Swerge, the Martels of
Bornholm, Denmark, the Von Kolms of Mecklenberg, Deustchland,
and the DeVeres of France (probably Normandy))
N.R.HASLOCK
idiocy.
> 1) Arthur was part Briton and part Roman and took command of
> a unit of heavy cavalry stationed in Northwestern England
> after his father died.
North west England is a silly place to put a garrison of heavy, or
even light, cavalry. There was nothing overly desirable there and no
major roads to the rest of the country. Places such as York, Lincoln
and Colchester are on the East side of the pennines and connected by
the great north road.
> 2) The garrison was probably centered at Colchester. Chester
> translates into "camp" and there are many chesters in western
> England.
Please name more than two. Although perhaps I should allow all of
the ...caster and ...cester place names. My quibble is that these
are Roman camps and should be of little relevance to Arthur fighting
invasions from the East.
> 3) The Heavy Cavalry (or Knight of the Round Table) were the
> only ones of their kind in England. They were Sarmatians,
> who came from the western shores of the Black Sea, where
> modern day Romainia is. They have large horses, a full suit
> of chainmail, helmet, breastplate, sheild and lance. The
> best armed troops of the day.
Why are the Knights of the Round Table definitely Sarmatians? Trade
still existed and I can believe in an equivalence troop being formed
but I need something more before I can accept the definite
statement.
> 4) The Sarmatians were stationed in England in the standard
> practice of many Empires. Troops were stationed in areas
> far removed from their homeland so they would not have to
> fight their own kind.
Please prove this statement. We are discussing the time frame of a
period after the removal of the legions.
> 5) Arther and his cavalry were attempting to maintain some
> form of order in the years after the Romans had withdrawn.
> This puts the time frame in the late 400's, early 500's.
Given.
> Britons were no longer Celts, but they weren't Saxons yet.
Britons were not, are not and will never be Saxons. On the other hand
I have no idea what a proper name for the inhabitants of England at
that time should be.
> Into this power vaccum the Saxons and Danes came, seizing
> eastern England.
Wait a moment. The Danes did not start to arrive for another 100
years or so. However there were problems with the Angles. There
were possibly problems with the Irish too, particularly the tribes
that the romans had called scotti.
> Arthur fought them from Western England
> using his "chesters". When he suffered a serious reverse,
> he spent a long time hiding out in the marshes of southwestern
> England, which is why is he is so well remembered there.
I disagree. I think he is remembered there because the land that he
defended in the west did not get overrun so soon after his death.
Kent, Sussex and East Anglia fell or was given to the Angles. The
Saxons pushed through these areas to the central counties. The
North fell shortly thereafter to the danes. The only places left
were Wales and Mercia and these are the places that remember Arthur.
> 6)Conclusion: Because of his Roman education and his
> excellent cavalry, Arthur could beat any of the roving
> bands and independent nobles that stood in his way. Whether
> he could stand up to the organized armies of the invaders
> depended on how much support he got from the Britons.
What organised armies?
As I see it, his cavalry was a success in his lifetime and fell apart
from a lack of leadership after his death.
> - Christopher Salander
>
> (descended from the Crosbys of Lancastershire, England,
^^^^
I was born as raised in Crosby, Lancashire. The Crosbys must have
left an awful long time ago if they think that the county around
Lancaster is called Lancastershire.
p.s. Can anyone translate 'Nigel made me' into Gaelic. I want to
carve to onto a Celtic harp that I have just about finished
building.
--
--
{ihnp4|vax135|allegra}!lznv!nrh
Nigel The Mad Englishman or
The Madly Maundering Mumbler in the Wildernesses
Everything you have read here is a figment of your imagination.
Noone else in the universe currently subscribes to these opinions.
"Its the rope, you know. You can't get it, you know."
N.R.HASLOCK
Mea Culpa, or as accurately translated 'Me a culprit'.
A few days ago I made a set of pronouncements which a look in my
Encyclopedia Britannica shows to be utter swill.
44 bc Ceasar came, saw, and left in disgust.
45 ad Three legions arrive and remain despite disust.
122 ad Hadrian has a wall built and named after him. It runs from
Carlisle to Newcastle on Tyne ( approximately )
145 ad Antonius has a go a conquering scotland currently the home
of the Picts. He has a wall built from the Solway Firth to
the Firth of Forth. This is a cheap wall, only 20 miles as
opposed to Hadrians 70 miles.
He also has a legion wandering off north of the wall.
180 ad The picts in all areas north of hadrians wall rise in
revolt. The legions retreat.
225 ad The work of revamping and repairing Hadrians wall is
started. No further messing about north of this wall.
340 ad Troops start to be recalled to Rome. Raids by Saxons and
Scotti are noticable and lead to a series of coastal forts
and watchtowers being built along the east coast.
360 ad Saxons are hired to defend against saxon raiders.
400 ad Last traces of rule from Rome are gone. Raids increase.
Celts pushed west to West Wales ( Now called Cornwall )
and North Wales ( Now called Wales ).
439 ad Saxon Kingdom of Kent founded.
449 ad Celts from West Wales raid and occupy Brittany
517 ad Mons Badonicus - Arthur's Last Battle. Peace for 44 years.
( the book notes that the battle was 517 minus 15 to 20
years )
Other Blunders.
Mercia is the Danish kingdom centered on Newcastle-on-Tyne
Wessex is the Saxon kingdom centered on Bristol, Bath or
possibly Oxford.
The kingdom of Kent became Sussex as it spread along the
south coast.
The Danes moved in earlier than I thought but not early
enough to figure in the Arthur legend.
Possible Truths.
The celtic name for fort, camp or castle is Caer or Car.
Chester, cester and caster are all saxon derivatives.
I do not believe that the danes went in for fortified
towns and so did not leave specific place name derivatives.
Note that 90+% of the roman names have been replaced,
e.g. Chester was Deva
Bath was Auae Sulis
York was Eboracum
Colchester was Camoludunum
London was Londinium ( was Londres or Logres?? )
If this discussion continues, I will look up Geoffrey of Monmouths
version of history and post that. Regardless of anything else it is
the earliest relevant document and{so obscure chukOnks of it have
been validated.
Happy Dreams Everyone
David M. MacMillan
The following quotation is from the Old English translation
[attributed to King Alfred, but probably done by Mercian
translators under his influence] of the Venerable Bede's
[:-) The Venemous Bede's] Ecclesiastical History of the English
People. [Original langauge, Latin.] Alas, I do not speak
Old English, so treat my translation warily. Eth and Thorn are
represented as th, and ash (the ae digraph) as ae.
Waes in tha tid heora heretoga and latteow Ambrosius, haten
othre noman Aurelianus. Waes god mon and gemetfaest,
Romanisces cynnes mon.
There was in that time a captain and leader Ambrosius,
by another name called Aurelianus. He was a good man and
moderate, a man of the Roman race.
My Old English professor, the learned John Halverson of
U.C. Santa Cruz, claimed that this was the only surviving
reference to Arthur in Old English literature. The passage
goes on to cite his achievements at the battle of Mt. Badon
(Beadonescan dune), but my translation above is sufficiently
offensive to dissuade me from attempting the whole paragraph.
I don't have a copy of the entire Ecclesiastical History;
my source is page 240 of Moore, Knott, and Hulbert's
The Elements of Old English.
I hope Old English ("Anglo-Saxon") is permissible in
discussions of things Celtic.
David M. MacMillan
P.S. A curious topic might be the misspellings of Gaelic
names. Within the past few years, an entirely new variant
has arisen: MacMillian. For some reason, I find this
particularly irritating.
Stephen Duncan
thought I had better take the opportunity to comment. I've got a few
details to add to the discussion (of course I missed whatever prompted
it).
In article <2...@lzwi.UUCP> n...@lzwi.UUCP (N.R.HASLOCK) writes:
>A few days ago I made a set of pronouncements which a look in my
>Encyclopedia Britannica shows to be utter swill.
(earlier dates in the time line)
>340 ad Troops start to be recalled to Rome. Raids by Saxons and
> Scotti are noticable and lead to a series of coastal forts
> and watchtowers being built along the east coast.
Hadrian's wall wrapped around both coasts in its initial design to defend
against Scotti and Picti. If you have access to British archaeological
journals, check "Current Archaeology" in the past year or so for recent
finds about such. The "Saxon Shore" defences around the English channel
(both coasts) might be about right for this date, though. I don't have
my reference stuff handy.
>400 ad Last traces of rule from Rome are gone.
From the Roman records, 410 for the orders, 412 likely for the pullout.
It's nice to have written records of such things.
>449 ad Celts from West Wales raid and occupy Brittany
There is significant evidence for peaceful settlement. Much of the
settlement was in what had been forest, though it is true that the
tribal boundaries changed. Brittany (Armorica) was also part of the
Roman shore defense, under the Roman Count of the Saxon Shore.
>Other Blunders.
> Mercia is the Danish kingdom centered on Newcastle-on-Tyne
Earlier Mercia was the kingdom of the Angles.
> I do not believe that the danes went in for fortified
> towns and so did not leave specific place name derivatives.
> Note that 90+% of the roman names have been replaced,
A good many of the Roman names were really Celtic, and several got
severely mangled in transmission to the Saxons. York really is the
same word as Eburacum: Eburacum -> Eboracum (maybe the reverse) ->
Eoforwic -> York. The Danes left a great many names behind, anything
ending in "by" or "thorpe". You might fint the British Ordinance
Survey maps of historical Britain quite interesting. Place names are
given, when known, in Celtic, Latin, Old English, and modern English.
>If this discussion continues, I will look up Geoffrey of Monmouths version...
>... it is the earliest relevant document ...
>{ihnp4|vax135|allegra}!lznv!nrh Nigel The Mad Englishman
Since I missed what the original point was, this may all be irrelevant,
but Nennius and Bede would both be older, the Mabinogian and Triads
arguably so. Unfortunately the Triads are all in Old Welsh, and I have
never found a translation, only references to them. Some of Taliesen's
(sp?)(Arthur's bard, maybe.) poetry still survives, at least in
fragments. Also check the archaeology shelves for stuff on the Saxon
Shore and South Cadbury.
(usual discalaimers about veracity of posting, etc) Steve Duncan